Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 283 (2.46 seconds)
Documents citing Prabha Shankar Dubey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2003

Mansukhbhai Lavjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 23 June, 2005

Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-quoted decisions to the facts of the present case, we find that Section 50 of NDPS Act was completely complied with by Mr. Jani, P.S.I. and there is no breach or violation of the provisions contained in Section 50 of the Act. The evidence of P.S.I. Who had searched the person of the appellant clearly shows that he first explained to the appellant the purpose of his visit to that place. He then told the appellant that he wanted to carry out a search of the person of the appellant. Thereafter he had told the appellant that if he so desired, he could be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. The appellant understood very well what he was told. He declined to be searched either in the presence of a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. It may be noticed that while giving statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The appellant did not say that he was unaware of his rights or that he was misled on that account in any manner. On the contrary, in general and vague manner it was only said that no offer as claimed by Mr. Jani was made to him. Though that by itself is not sufficient to convict the appellant in view of the procedural safeguards required to be observed by compliance with the requirements of Section 50, yet this is of some relevance in appreciating the grievance, now sought to be ventilated. It is, therefore, not possible to agree with the contention of the appellant that mandatory requirement of Section 50 was not complied with in instant case. The appellant is not entitled to get any benefit on the ground that breach of the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act was committed by the police officer, who searched his person.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - H B Antani - Full Document

Shankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 June, 2021

04 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 30239/2021 (Shankar vs. State of M.P.) permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and 7 . The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information;
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R K Shrivastava - Full Document

Suresh & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 November, 2012

11) The above Panchnama indicates that the appellants were merely asked to give their consent for search by the police party and not apprised of their legal right provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to refuse/to allow the police party to take their search and opt for being searched before the Gazetted officer or by the Magistrate. In other words, a reading of the Panchnama makes it clear that the appellants were not apprised about their right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate but consent was sought for their personal search. Merely asking them as to whether they would offer their personal search to him, i.e., the police officer or to gazetted officer may not satisfy the protection afforded under Section 50 of the NDPS Act as interpreted in Baldev singh’s case. Further a reading of the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court also show that in the presence of Panchas, the SHO merely asked all the three appellants for their search by him and they simply agreed. This is reflected in the Panchnama. Though in Baldev Singh’s case, this Court has not expressed any opinion as to whether the provisions of Section 50 are mandatory or directory but “failure to inform” the person concerned of his right as emanating from sub-section (1) of Section 50 may render the recovery of the contraband suspect and the conviction and sentence of an accused bad and unsustainable in law. In Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja’s case (supra), recently the Constitution Bench has explained the mandate provided under sub-section (1) of Section 50 and concluded that it is mandatory and requires strict compliance. The Bench also held that failure to comply with the provision would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the accused during such search. The concept of substantial compliance as noted in Joseph Fernadez (supra) and Prabha Shankar Dubey (supra) were not acceptable by the Constitution Bench in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja, accordingly, in view of the language as evident from the panchnama which we have quoted earlier, we hold that, in the case on hand, the search and seizure of the suspect from the person of the appellants is bad and conviction is unsustainable in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 213 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar Rajput @ Khan vs The State Nct Of Delhi [Along With Crl.A. ... on 2 May, 2008

14. It is sought to be contended that the notices in terms of Section 50 were manipulated since they contained the FIR number. It is submitted that the rukkas having been prepared at 9.30 pm and sent thereafter with ASI Hari Ram for registering, the FIR number could not have been available at 6.30 pm, that the admissions by the witnesses that the documents were prepared from point A to A which did precede the FIR No. , in the presence of PW-15 falsify the case of the prosecution that these documents were written up at the spot at 6.30 pm. It was contended that these interpolations in the documents vitiated the entire recovery and that the trial court erred in holding that the compliance with Section 50 was not mandatory. In the first place it requires to be noticed that the recovery was not from the person of the accused but from a bag being carried by him. In a large number of cases the Supreme Court has held that the bag does not come within the definition of person as contemplated under Section 50 NDPS Act. The compliance in substance and not in form has been insisted upon by the Supreme Court in Krishna Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan and Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.P. .
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 60 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Jawahar vs The State on 23 March, 2007

11. Although considering the conflict of opinion between Balbir Singh's case(Supra) and other cases on one hand and Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.P. 2004 SCC(Cri) 420 (Supra) and other cases, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench of Supreme Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2007) 1 SCC(Crl.) 370, but in view of the later decisions of the Supreme Court, I consider that there was sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and until the later decisions are reversed, this Court is bound by these decisions of the Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S N Dhingra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next